Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 04:58:00 -
[31]
Greifing from eve's perspective.
Purposly single handedly picking out and targeting one person on a personal level ensuring that they are entirely unable to play at all. A single podding or territorial poddings shouldnt constitue greifing especially if you extend this courtesy to other 'targets'. But chasing a guy over 80 jumps just so you can specifically pod him again for the tenth time is pertty much there. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 11JAN11
|
Donatella D'Tren
Harbingers of Chaos Inc. Mongoose Legion
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 05:21:00 -
[32]
Quote: filed as cyber terrorism under the Patriot Act.
WAT.
Permadec.
|
Apollo Gabriel
Brotherhood Of Fallen Angels Etherium Cartel
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 05:29:00 -
[33]
I help newbs out of w-space, I scram miners then let them go when I find them in low sec to remind them not to be dumb ... so I am not a griefer, not do I much like it when it happens to me (e.g. the point of the word)
You sir did NOT grief, even if you had, it is a game. It is not bullying, it is not something one has to do to function, it is purely for entertainment. There are many games which offer zero harassment venues, as does Eve in its NPC corp system.
You can war dec any PC corp for any reason, keep the war going for as long as you want, suicide gank every one of their toons when they leave for NPC corps and it still aint griefing.
You want grief? warp scramble them for 8 hours sometime, that's grief. Best regards, Apollo Gabriel
|
Vabjekf
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 06:29:00 -
[34]
Its subjective. Its not going to be certain actions are and certain are not, its the reason you are doing them.
If you are doing something for:
1. Profit 2. Revenge 3. Control of your turf 4. Something about them that makes you angry 5. Etc.
Then its not griefing.
If you are doing it just to make random people angry or for no tangible benefit to yourself then its griefing.
Of course many griefers can hide behind one of the above things as a valid reason, and as i have no desire to have thought police and thought crimes its got to stay at that. But if someone does something that obviously does not benefit themselves at all its pretty clear they are just griefing.
I will say that anyone who uses the term 'cyber bullying' is exempt. They deserve to be harassed as much as you can.
|
Major MouseTrap
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 07:05:00 -
[35]
Well the op is kinda right new laws are going on the books every week.Some states, like Wisconsin, have both a bullying law (which recently passed) and separate statutes regulating telephones and other forms of electronic communication. Specifically, in Wisconsin it is a misdemeanor crime to threaten to ôinflict injury or personal harmö through the use of e-mail or another computerized communication system. It is also illegal to harass, annoy, or otherwise offend another person electronically. Each state is different with respect to the extent that they specifically address electronic forms of harassment. Educators, parents, and law enforcement officers need to be sure to carefully review and understand the statutes in their own state to understand the formal legal implications of participating in cyberbullying. More than 35 states have anti-bullying laws specifically mandating school districts adopt anti-bullying policies. And 15 states now have some type of cyberbullying law on the books, and another seven with pending legislation before their state legislators. Missouri and California have passed the strongest laws protecting victims of cyberbullying while handing down the harshest punishment to the cyber-bully. Each year more and more states are passing laws protecting children and adults alike from these types of attacks. Federal Cyberbullying Laws On April 2, 2009, a federal level bill addressing cyberbullying was placed before the House of Representatives titled the "Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act" (Bill H.R. 1966). The Megan Meier case caused law enforcement, parents and advocates to realize that in some cases adults were perpetrating some of the crimes, which may allow some jurisdictions to look at cyberbullying as a form of child abuse when an underage minor is involved
|
Choujinburi
Gallente The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 07:19:00 -
[36]
This is comedy gold.
|
Agallis Zinthros
SniggWaffe GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 07:32:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Selinate
Originally by: Akita T Probably the only activity that is actually defined as "greiefing" by CCP is can-baiting newbies in starter systems. Everything else is fair game as long as no RL threats are issued and communication is lacking non-RP-ed racism or other specifically forbidden things.
Basically, "griefing" doesn't really exist in EVE outside of starter systems.
This isn't true. If you harass any players just "for the lulz", and that's pretty much all you do, it's bannable.
linkage
I'm gonna need source on the lulz thing, because I'm pretty sure Hulkageddon never stopped being a thing. It's not piracy, its surprise PVP. |
Major MouseTrap
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 07:50:00 -
[38]
Example A. Bob a 17 year old kid playing eve online you are Tom 28 year old mechanic play eve online too. You (Tom) wardec Bob's corp, the kid agro you alot so you keep atacking him for weeks smack talking in local telling him you will kill him every time he undocks.On the third week bob brake's down asked you to leave him alone in his words (let me play quit harrassing me). You Tom love to here him cry in local so you keep it up....now the 17 year old kid is so upset he hurts him self. He leave a note blaming Tom on eve online. The parents get on his computer look at the log's they contact the police etc. Now the US news media picks up on the story its on CNN .....just the chat ...scamms...etc in Jita would make the Eve player's look like the devil after the media is done Eve online is stuck in legal muck and just plain looks bad after the media spin on it .......oo and Tom he was charged and is awaiting his day in court..............so remember people its just a game if someone is truly upset let it go............
|
Serge Bastana
Gallente GWA Corp
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 07:51:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Schalac LOL patriot act.
My thoughts exactly, get a grip
------------------------------------------------ You either need a punch up the throat or a good shag.
Nobody round here is offering the second one therefore your choices are limited! |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 08:04:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Selinate
Originally by: Akita T Probably the only activity that is actually defined as "greiefing" by CCP is can-baiting newbies in starter systems. Everything else is fair game as long as no RL threats are issued and communication is lacking non-RP-ed racism or other specifically forbidden things.
Basically, "griefing" doesn't really exist in EVE outside of starter systems.
This isn't true. If you harass any players just "for the lulz", and that's pretty much all you do, it's bannable. linkage
It might not be true from a purely technical viewpoint, but from a practical viewpoint, other than RL-linked harassment, there's not much else except newbie starter system canbaiting that will ever be actually enforced punishments-wise. As long as the POTENTIAL for financial gain exists, just about any in-game violence is not just allowed, but actually encouraged.
3 day old player in Jita in a newbie frigate ? He might have some PLEX on him, suicide gank it ! Maybe he has some on him this time, I can't be bothered to fit cargo scanners, do it again ! Hey, I want to wardec this corp full of newbies, they'll surely pay for me to leave them alone ! If not now, maybe later. Hey, maybe this guy that annoyed me has enemies willing to pay me to chase him away, if I cause enough trouble for him maybe I'll come across one of his enemies and ask for payment to drive him away. And so on and so forth.
I have yet to hear of a single case of "griefing" other than what I specifically mentioned (plus any other action that would break other parts of the EULA, of course) where CCP would even warn the player, let alone ban them, even temporarily. If anybody has any evidence of CCP actually handing out warnings for any "griefing", please, come forward, let your story be heard and hopefully confirmed.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
|
Karn Velora
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:12:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Azelor Delaria
Quote: Greetings.
I have been thinking about the reasoning behind your corp war decing mine, and I came up with some realizations.
Your corp stated the reason for the war is because you found some SF alts within our corporation, and you war dec'ed WEX to get those players to fight in SF. That the war has nothing to do with this corporation itself, just the specific players.
I find that this reason goes beyond the scope of the MMORPG EVE Online. The war contract that your corp originally received was to dec SF, and the characters therein. I am almost certain that the contract said nothing about the physical players who pay to play the game, and all of their alts.
War decing a corporation because the players have alts in that corp is nothing short of cyber harassment and cyber bullying.
If you do not drop the war dec on Wiyrkomi Excavations, I will have no choice but to contact CCP and report your corporation for cyber harassment beyond the scope of the game, stating that the players themselves feel harassed and threatened by the reasons for this war dec.
This is not a bluff.
I will provide CCP with mails sent from your corporation to Carpet stating the reasons for the war dec above.
If this does not work, then I will do everything in my power to get this filed as cyber terrorism under the Patriot Act.
My whole point for the rant is: when is it griefing? Has there been a post on this, or can we assume that there will never be a definitive answer?
There's plenty of things that should be considered griefing, that CCP don't give a **** about. This is not one of them. It's the unfortunate reality of EVE these days that a huge portion of gankers use high sec to grid in peace and then turn around to use the isk to gank people. They want 100% safety to grind, but they also want everyone else to be a target when it pleases them. To make matters worse, they are actually hiding behind a wall of alts.
Needless to say, they don't have a leg to stand on. Hell, even if they had a point that deccing alts would (lol) be beyond the scope of the game - they are still **** out of luck, as their alts are financing their griefers - and that again turns them into fair play targets.
Now... threatening players with bull**** US legal action under the patriot act for playing the game is really, really bad. This is DEFINITELY something CCP want to know about. Inform CCP about this ASAP, and in the meantime, wipe them out.
|
EnslaverOfMinmatar
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:17:00 -
[42]
OP, start playing through a proxy :D uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ ƃuıpɐǝɹ ǝɹɐ noʎ
|
Karn Velora
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:17:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Major MouseTrap Well the op is kinda right new laws are going on the books every week.Some states, like Wisconsin, have both a bullying law (which recently passed) and separate statutes regulating telephones and other forms of electronic communication. Specifically, in Wisconsin it is a misdemeanor crime to threaten to ôinflict injury or personal harmö through the use of e-mail or another computerized communication system. It is also illegal to harass, annoy, or otherwise offend another person electronically. Each state is different with respect to the extent that they specifically address electronic forms of harassment. Educators, parents, and law enforcement officers need to be sure to carefully review and understand the statutes in their own state to understand the formal legal implications of participating in cyberbullying. More than 35 states have anti-bullying laws specifically mandating school districts adopt anti-bullying policies. And 15 states now have some type of cyberbullying law on the books, and another seven with pending legislation before their state legislators. Missouri and California have passed the strongest laws protecting victims of cyberbullying while handing down the harshest punishment to the cyber-bully. Each year more and more states are passing laws protecting children and adults alike from these types of attacks. Federal Cyberbullying Laws On April 2, 2009, a federal level bill addressing cyberbullying was placed before the House of Representatives titled the "Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act" (Bill H.R. 1966). The Megan Meier case caused law enforcement, parents and advocates to realize that in some cases adults were perpetrating some of the crimes, which may allow some jurisdictions to look at cyberbullying as a form of child abuse when an underage minor is involved
So, yea, they don't have a leg to stand on. The bullying acts simply clarify that all the usual bullying is still illegal - even if it's done over the internet. (**** they need a law to clarify that?) This doesn't in any way apply to "They are shooting me on a pvp game. Unfair." This is ridiculous.
|
Diomedes Calypso
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:29:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Schalac LOL patriot act.
+ 1 lmao
this sort of level of emotion is what makes the game so good .. heck, even myself lost it over the "free remap" thing (well i've still lost it . but thats another matter)
watch out guys, the fbi is coming
|
Forum Guy
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:33:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Vabjekf But if someone does something that obviously does not benefit themselves at all its pretty clear they are just griefing.
Lets look at what you just said there.
A kid at school gets their dinner money taken by a school bully. So from your statement we can assume its not bullying/griefing because the bully benefits from it.
Can you see why your statement is not right?
|
Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:42:00 -
[46]
The alt system allows players to keep happily playing while avoiding non-consensual pvp. If the alts are discovered, it's fair game. -- Eventus stultorum magister. |
rootimus maximus
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:44:00 -
[47]
The CEO of Wiyrkomi Excavations should stop crying. According to his info, he has the title General of the armies. He should send some of those armies to deal with the corp that issued the wardec. Or change his title to something more suitable, like Pansy in Chief.
Originally by: Forum Guy A kid at school gets their dinner money taken by a school bully. So from your statement we can assume its not bullying/griefing because the bully benefits from it.
Can you see why your statement is not right?
Either you're a troll, or you can't see the difference between RL and a PvP *game*.
|
Lillith Starfire
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:44:00 -
[48]
Actually he does have a point but only if there is no direct interaction between the characters
For example: Let's call our player JimBob. JimBob has two characters. One is a pirate. The other is a miner. JimBob does not trade or have any links between his two characters.
You for some reason war dec the pirate character. Then somehow you find out the miner also belongs to JimBob. You war dec the miner because you know it belongs to JimBob
What you've done here could be viewed as griefing because you are attacking JimBob just because it is JimBob's characters. It's gone to a personal level.
If, however, JimBob trades between characters or there is some other link (one supports the other for example) then it is not griefing.
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:47:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Forum Guy
Originally by: Vabjekf But if someone does something that obviously does not benefit themselves at all its pretty clear they are just griefing.
Lets look at what you just said there.
A kid at school gets their dinner money taken by a school bully. So from your statement we can assume its not bullying/griefing because the bully benefits from it.
Can you see why your statement is not right?
No because this is a pvp game while the dinner money is not.
|
Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:49:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 11/01/2011 09:50:21
Originally by: Lillith Starfire Actually he does have a point but only if there is no direct interaction between the characters
For example: Let's call our player JimBob. JimBob has two characters. One is a pirate. The other is a miner. JimBob does not trade or have any links between his two characters.
You for some reason war dec the pirate character. Then somehow you find out the miner also belongs to JimBob. You war dec the miner because you know it belongs to JimBob
What you've done here could be viewed as griefing because you are attacking JimBob just because it is JimBob's characters. It's gone to a personal level.
If, however, JimBob trades between characters or there is some other link (one supports the other for example) then it is not griefing.
Bull****. JimBob's piracy means he instigates non-consensual pvp all the time. He has no right to be artificially protected from it by CCP or by law if people know who his alt is. -- Eventus stultorum magister. |
|
Forum Guy
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:55:00 -
[51]
Originally by: rootimus maximus The CEO of Wiyrkomi Excavations should stop crying. According to his info, he has the title General of the armies. He should send some of those armies to deal with the corp that issued the wardec. Or change his title to something more suitable, like Pansy in Chief.
Originally by: Forum Guy A kid at school gets their dinner money taken by a school bully. So from your statement we can assume its not bullying/griefing because the bully benefits from it.
Can you see why your statement is not right?
Either you're a troll, or you can't see the difference between RL and a PvP *game*.
I know the difference alright, but I am also aware that there are real life people behind those characters.
|
rootimus maximus
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 10:04:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Forum Guy I know the difference alright, but I am also aware that there are real life people behind those characters.
What's your point? People die in computer games all the time. If they can't seperate that from reality then they really need pyschiatric help.
|
Forum Guy
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 10:15:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Arthur Frayn The alt system allows players to keep happily playing while avoiding non-consensual pvp. If the alts are discovered, it's fair game.
A lot of war-decs are declared on non-pvp corps, for essentially easy kills. Not all alts are linked in the way people make out in these threads. The only reason to hit on the alts is to try and keep a player locked up in a station and not playing the game. In your mind cutting off the supply which might not be the case anyway.
Main reason a non-pvper would keep an alt seperate from the corp they were in, is because of war-decs. When a war-dec is declared they park that character in a station and use the alt. Which is completely fair, it might not give the result that the people war-dec'ing want (as they are after kill mails as well as) but it does put a character out of action for awhile.
|
Lillith Starfire
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 10:19:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Arthur Frayn Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 11/01/2011 09:50:21
Originally by: Lillith Starfire Actually he does have a point but only if there is no direct interaction between the characters
For example: Let's call our player JimBob. JimBob has two characters. One is a pirate. The other is a miner. JimBob does not trade or have any links between his two characters.
You for some reason war dec the pirate character. Then somehow you find out the miner also belongs to JimBob. You war dec the miner because you know it belongs to JimBob
What you've done here could be viewed as griefing because you are attacking JimBob just because it is JimBob's characters. It's gone to a personal level.
If, however, JimBob trades between characters or there is some other link (one supports the other for example) then it is not griefing.
Bull****. JimBob's piracy means he instigates non-consensual pvp all the time. He has no right to be artificially protected from it by CCP or by law if people know who his alt is.
No, JimBob's pirate character is. His miner has nothing to do with anything? So you're suggesting that it's still fine to dec someone's chars even if they have nothing to do with each other? The only link being they are both owned by JimBob? That is griefing.
Now if the characters had some ingame link to each other or you had some other legit reason to dec the other then sure, but for no other reasons then no it is personal griefing.
|
Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 10:31:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 11/01/2011 10:32:09
Originally by: Lillith Starfire
Originally by: Arthur Frayn Bull****. JimBob's piracy means he instigates non-consensual pvp all the time. He has no right to be artificially protected from it by CCP or by law if people know who his alt is.
No, JimBob's pirate character is. His miner has nothing to do with anything? So you're suggesting that it's still fine to dec someone's chars even if they have nothing to do with each other? The only link being they are both owned by JimBob? That is griefing.
Now if the characters had some ingame link to each other or you had some other legit reason to dec the other then sure, but for no other reasons then no it is personal griefing.
You don't understand. Let me explain it for you:
"JimBob" has plenty of ingame tools at his disposal to avoid griefing on any of his characters. He can temporarily move to an NPC corp(the best way to protect oneself), hire merc corps, stay in highsec if not wardecced, and even as last resort, he can log off for a week. The motive for those attacking him is irrelevant. Whether they know or not that he's the alt of a known pirate, they have a right to wardec him and engage him in pvp. No outside force should be protecting him because the game rules allow him to take steps to protect himself.
Did you forget that Eve has a pretty clear warning label? If you undock, you put yourself at risk. No exceptions. -- Eventus stultorum magister. |
Forum Guy
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 10:36:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Arthur Frayn
"JimBob" has plenty of ingame tools at his disposal to avoid griefing on any of his characters. He can temporarily move to an NPC corp(the best way to protect oneself),
Not everyone wants to keep jumping in and out of corps. Main reason for that is the employment record each character has. Their play style might change over the life time of their character and who wants a crappy employment record.
|
Lillith Starfire
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 10:46:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Arthur Frayn You don't understand. Let me explain it for you:
"JimBob" has plenty of ingame tools at his disposal to avoid griefing on any of his characters. He can temporarily move to an NPC corp(the best way to protect oneself), hire merc corps, stay in highsec if not wardecced, and even as last resort, he can log off for a week. The motive for those attacking him is irrelevant. Whether they know or not that he's the alt of a known pirate, they have a right to wardec him and engage him in pvp. No outside force should be protecting him because the game rules allow him to take steps to protect himself.
Did you forget that Eve has a pretty clear warning label? If you undock, you put yourself at risk. No exceptions.
I don't disagree about the risk aspect. I am fully aware there can be war decs for any trivial reason. What I'm saying is that if the reason is "It's because it's a character of this player" then you are basically proving you are going after the player and trying to attack him regardless. Well I'll stop here because it's obvious some people can't tell the difference between characters and actual person.
|
Zaerlorth Maelkor
The Maverick Navy IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 11:08:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Ashlar Maidstone After looking at the mail that you recieved from the corps that you war dec'ced, I am under the opinion that yes, this is griefing but targeting specific players and not the corporation(s) themselves. I can be wrong however but yes there is a limit as to how far you can go before it becomes a matter outside of the game. This would be also go beyond the scope of the game masters and CCP as a whole as you would then enter into a whole new arena.
Cyber Terrorism is not new anymore as we all know from recent news. However when it becomes such that invoking the Patriot Act, may prove to be difficult even in a court of law, and a judge would really have to look at this form of griefing as harrassment or cyber bullying and rule accordingly.
Another alt spotted! Wardec this one also! However, you might want to consider a few things, first of all; I now have one of those annoying sigs. second; you should probably move on to some more interesting things than reading this sig.
|
NupetietVer
Ice Fire Warriors
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 11:49:00 -
[59]
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Someone actually invoking cyber bullying. These tears are tasty.
|
JC Anderson
Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 12:21:00 -
[60]
Edited by: JC Anderson on 11/01/2011 12:24:04
What you are doing is not griefing in my book.
There are certain situations where its hard to tell the difference though. Many merc corps will not take out contracts against specific individuals alone as that could be considered griefing. About a week ago in the C&P forums a GM replied to a thread where somebody was looking to hire mercs out against a single individual. The GM said that in that particular case, they in fact may consider it griefing despite the fact that they were being "hired" to do it.
Also, word for word from the EULA. It's pretty vague in all honesty. (Somebody posted a link to it above... But if your lazy, then here it is.)
Grief play What is grief play? Griefing A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making othersÆ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players.
This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account.
An example of grief play would be the so called "Can baiting" in starter systems. An experienced player drops a cargo container with some items in front of a station in a starter system and waits for a new player to take from it. The new player is flagged and promptly attacked and killed by the owner of the container. Doing the same in starter tutorial complexes is also considered grief play and will not be tolerated.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |